minutes to goals ratio for last season is actually really interesting:Bent - 1 every 270minsGabby - 1 every 626minsWeimann - 1 every 471minsBenteke - 1 every 207minsKozak - 1 every 207minsKozak is slight better than I expected there, I thought he's be closer to Bent's average.Not sure what this has to do with Alan Hutton though.
Quote from: bobdylan on July 22, 2014, 12:19:30 PMQuote from: PeterWithesShin on July 22, 2014, 11:38:40 AMQuote from: bobdylan on July 22, 2014, 10:31:37 AMHe still comfortably outscored Gabby though even as a bit part player for a relegated side.Gabby 4 league goals, Bent 3. Yer cup goals don't count, Withey didn't really score in Rotterdam it was all a dream.What have cup games got to do with a team being relegated?Nonetheless including cup games - Bent 6, Gabby 4.
Quote from: PeterWithesShin on July 22, 2014, 11:38:40 AMQuote from: bobdylan on July 22, 2014, 10:31:37 AMHe still comfortably outscored Gabby though even as a bit part player for a relegated side.Gabby 4 league goals, Bent 3. Yer cup goals don't count, Withey didn't really score in Rotterdam it was all a dream.
Quote from: bobdylan on July 22, 2014, 10:31:37 AMHe still comfortably outscored Gabby though even as a bit part player for a relegated side.Gabby 4 league goals, Bent 3.
He still comfortably outscored Gabby though even as a bit part player for a relegated side.
On current pre season form I'd start Hutton at stoke. Lowton just continues to look too much of a liability defensively. And I really like Lowton. But if he doesn't learn to defend we can't keep carrying him
Quote from: paul_e on July 22, 2014, 02:04:04 PMminutes to goals ratio for last season is actually really interesting:Bent - 1 every 270minsGabby - 1 every 626minsWeimann - 1 every 471minsBenteke - 1 every 207minsKozak - 1 every 207minsKozak is slight better than I expected there, I thought he's be closer to Bent's average.Not sure what this has to do with Alan Hutton though.I genuinely don't know what people dislike about Kozak.He came in, he scored a few goals, he got injured. Lots of people seem to forget the "scoring a few goals" thing.
I genuinely don't know what people dislike about Kozak.He came in, he scored a few goals, he got injured. Lots of people seem to forget the "scoring a few goals" thing.
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on July 22, 2014, 02:56:02 PMI genuinely don't know what people dislike about Kozak.He came in, he scored a few goals, he got injured. Lots of people seem to forget the "scoring a few goals" thing.He was signed by Paul Lambert, with money authorised by Randy Lerner. It was the same with Peter Crouch -a blind man could see there was a footballer there, but because Sir Graham II and Doug were so discredited in many eyes they couldn't possibly have done anything right.
Nothing, who said they did?
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on February 21, 2014, 12:50:13 PMQuote from: Dave Clark Five on February 21, 2014, 12:45:16 PMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on February 21, 2014, 12:31:35 PMNothing will convince me that the best way to move on players you don't want any more is to ostracise them and make them train with the under 12s.I agree. The article in the Mail is typical mumbo jumbo. Why does Lambert have to speak in riddles? 'Nothing to do with football', then why not play him? There have been numerous occasions that he could have played, despite Hutton being scapegoat no.1, even to people who have probably never seen him play. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a poor player, I really do.However, given that our only other non-out-of-position option there until just lately, Lowton, was also pretty poor for much of the time, and given we've spent the last 18 months or however long we've been pretending Hutton doesn't exist, paying him 40k a week anyway, perhaps it might have made sense to include him in the squad?agreed 100%. self defeating not including him. If he came in and played well in a few games, someone might take a punt on him. He couldnt have been any worse than the likes of Lowton, Bacuna and Luna this season anyway.Hutton is a strange one though. Remember his weight ballooning at times at Spurs, where he mixed runs of good form with horrible form. Had a decent loan spell at Sunderland a few years back aswell. His first season he was shite for us but if he cut out his thuggish behaviour that he displayed with us, never really saw it in him elsewhere, he should be at least a competent option at right back.
Quote from: Dave Clark Five on February 21, 2014, 12:45:16 PMQuote from: pauliewalnuts on February 21, 2014, 12:31:35 PMNothing will convince me that the best way to move on players you don't want any more is to ostracise them and make them train with the under 12s.I agree. The article in the Mail is typical mumbo jumbo. Why does Lambert have to speak in riddles? 'Nothing to do with football', then why not play him? There have been numerous occasions that he could have played, despite Hutton being scapegoat no.1, even to people who have probably never seen him play. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a poor player, I really do.However, given that our only other non-out-of-position option there until just lately, Lowton, was also pretty poor for much of the time, and given we've spent the last 18 months or however long we've been pretending Hutton doesn't exist, paying him 40k a week anyway, perhaps it might have made sense to include him in the squad?
Quote from: pauliewalnuts on February 21, 2014, 12:31:35 PMNothing will convince me that the best way to move on players you don't want any more is to ostracise them and make them train with the under 12s.I agree. The article in the Mail is typical mumbo jumbo. Why does Lambert have to speak in riddles? 'Nothing to do with football', then why not play him? There have been numerous occasions that he could have played, despite Hutton being scapegoat no.1, even to people who have probably never seen him play.
Nothing will convince me that the best way to move on players you don't want any more is to ostracise them and make them train with the under 12s.